If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

XWayland 2D Performance Appears Better Than XMir

Phoronix: XWayland 2D Performance Appears Better Than XMir

In the past few days I delivered X.Org vs. XMir Ubuntu Unity benchmarks on Intel hardware and Nouveau / NVIDIA. The benchmarking also found that 2D was also slower with XMir than simply running an X.Org Server. Benchmarks now carried out of X.Org vs. XWayland show that the Wayland-based equivalent is generally faster, at least for 2D operations...

fanboys will be fanboys

One could also speculate that wayland is significantly worse from the fact that he couldn't run anything that requires 3D and that for other tests weston broke with segfaults. Making such conclusions about which display server is superior on the basis of couple of tests is stupid and irresponsible.

Everyone predicted the results!

Well, this is not a surprise!

The benchmarks are done in Weston, which is Wayland native. Only the apps use XWayland.

Wayland Programmers predicted these results: X Apps on a Wayland environment will be the about the same or faster than on a full X environment. (because it's like they are fullscreen: the X server does less calculus)

The XMir benchmarks were done with a full X emulation via XMir: Unity 7 ran under XMir (not Mir native), so apps running under it are not fullscreen: can only be lower performance.

The benchmarks are done in Weston, which is Wayland native. Only the apps use XWayland.

Wayland Programmers predicted these results: X Apps on a Wayland environment will be the about the same or faster than on a full X environment. (because it's like they are fullscreen: the X server does less calculus)

The XMir benchmarks were done with a full X emulation via XMir: Unity 7 ran under XMir (not Mir native), so apps running under it are not fullscreen: can only be lower performance.

And you know why?
Because XWayland was developed having in mind to run X legacy apps inside a Wayland world. It was not developed to runs an entire desktop environment on top of it.
But Canonical needs testing for their Mir, so they will force every ubuntu users to become a tester.
That is the difference: people that know what to do (Wayland devs) and a bunch of beginners (Mir devs).
You are right, taking that into consideration, these (and future) results are predictable.

One could also speculate that wayland is significantly worse from the fact that he couldn't run anything that requires 3D and that for other tests weston broke with segfaults. Making such conclusions about which display server is superior on the basis of couple of tests is stupid and irresponsible.

One could, sure, if one were a ubuntu fanboy in denial...

Can't wait for bo$$ to troll this thread and call the entire world basement dwellers.

The benchmarks are done in Weston, which is Wayland native. Only the apps use XWayland.

Wayland Programmers predicted these results: X Apps on a Wayland environment will be the about the same or faster than on a full X environment. (because it's like they are fullscreen: the X server does less calculus)

The XMir benchmarks were done with a full X emulation via XMir: Unity 7 ran under XMir (not Mir native), so apps running under it are not fullscreen: can only be lower performance.

Good point. What I don't understand is why Ubuntu isn't going straight to Unity on Mir? I was under the impression that it was running fine, so why bother with xmir? (No troll replies please)